E Ticketing and Ticket Dispute Adjudication

Question MarkThere was a brief flurry in the media a couple of weeks ago about the implementation of electronic traffic tickets and dispute adjudication replacing traffic court. I had not heard anything about this from the provincial government after the publication of the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act to allow the changes in 2012. Being curious, I traded e-mails with the Public Affairs office of the Ministry of Justice to see if I could learn more.

Implementation of the changes will be conducted in two phases, with electronic ticketing proceeding first. E-tickets and on line payment methods are currently in the planning stages and currently there is no date set for police to put away their ball point pens and paper ticket books. Once this system is functioning, phase two will continue with the change to an administrative justice model to replace our current traffic court model.

The Ministry points out that the changes are intended to create system efficiencies and make processes more accessible for citizens. It is not uncommon to have to wait as much as a year or more currently for your day in traffic court. If the resolution process is quicker RoadSafetyBC will be able to take action against high risk drivers more promptly.

The news release issued by the government in May of 2012 is still the most current information according to public affairs. Since the general tone of the media articles was resistance to the switch to dispute adjudication, if you feel it is necessary, you still have time to contact your MLA and make your views known. Of course, if you think that adjudication would be an improvement, you could state that view too.

Reference Link:


Eliminating a wait by eliminating rights ?

Is the statement attributed to the Provincial Government: "...the changes are intended to create system efficiencies and make processes more accessible for citizens." spin ?

The (former) accused, who is now deemed guilty at first contact by the accusing member, has lost the following rights :

- Presumption of innocents
- Right to a public trial
- Right not to give evidence in his own trial
- Right to be tried by an independent trier of fact
- Right to cross examine witnesses

We'll now have a system where.  The motorist is guilty, he/she may appeal their guilt by supplying a report of what they say happened.  That report will be reviewed in conjunction with a report from the police officer, in private by a Motor Vehicle Branch employee. 

The spin is this "new wonderful system" is going to be efficient, the question is: "Efficient for who ?"

Also the statement : "It is not uncommon to have to wait as much as a year or more currently for your day in traffic court."

That statement, seems to be presenting the message that it is good that one gets a trial very quickly and this is a big concern to all the (former) accused motorist.  Perhaps more correct, "It is not uncommon for the Government to have to wait as much as a year or more, currently to get paid their fine"

If the government thinks they have a problem with court delays, perhaps more courts, or more Judicial Justice of the Peace working longer hours (night court ?).

If you want to talk about atrocities with respect to delays, what about the photo radar system that was tossed ? The government didn’t think there was anything wrong with the photo radar system, where the police took a photo of a car and weeks later the photo was sent to the registered owner. “You are alleged to have been speeding three weeks ago at 1:23 PM on XYZ Street.

I’m going to formulate a defense on something that happened three weeks ago, that I wasn’t advised of for three weeks ?

I don’t recall what I had for lunch yesterday.

The stolen vehicle that sped through photo radar, the poor victim who lost his vehicle gets victimized again when a photo of his vehicle arrives with the government demanding he “own up for the violation” ?

Those delays were all fine and good ?

Elimination of Traffic Courts

The only legitimate way to settle legal disputes between a citizen and the state is to be able to compel your accuser (the police) to present their evidence in an impartial court. The proposed tribunal system eliminates all of the rights inherent in our courts. This only works for the government, not citizens.

May 2012?

Not to be picky DriveSmartBC but May 2012? I presume you mean to edit it to May 2015 in your original post

Our Policy Is To ALWAYS Blame The Computer


I mean May 2012 and that's exactly what I was told.

Google Ads